Test Pieces - Wrong Material?

[briesmith]

I noticed the previous posting about tenor voice preference and I am a regular visitor to the Critique my Voice forum and a thought that relates to both occurred that I wanted to share.

Firstly; why do so many posts on the critique forum concern themselves with what I call "agony" singing? There is so little musicality - and so little virtuosity - in Sweet Child of Mine, Highway to Hell, anything in fact from that AC/DC, Judas Priest, Metallica and so on genre, that using their songs as test pieces is largely pointless. There is simply not enough in them to let any one judge the voice.

Anyone with a trained, capable voice can make any sound they want. But why would anyone with a trained, capable voice want to make that sort of sound? Surely the only reason Axl sings the way he does is because he doesn't know any better?

And this brings me back to the tenor - baritone issue. Being a baritone myself I understand the frustration that the emphasis on the tenor voice can bring. But when listening to Juan Diego Florez, say, you simply have to admit that there is something in his tenor singing that makes it stand out and admit to understanding why people want to hear it and more importantly, pay for it. It's also true that the tenor canon contains some of the "best" (ie most popular, easy listening) songs ever written.

What I would say is that the top of the baritone range and the top of the tenor are not millions of miles apart and a baritone singing "up there" with the right qualities to his voice can sound every bit as bright and interesting as a tenor. Singers fronting bands doing 2 and 3 hour gigs are there, on stage, for the long haul and their voice has to stand up to the demands of long sets. Singing with a "bit in hand" whatever the "range" of their voice has got to be a sound strategy?

It seems to me that while singers might need to grow their listenable range, bands and instrumentalists might need to learn a bit more about transposition?

[jonpall]

I see your point but surely you realize that millions of people consider Sweet child o' mine and some of those AC/DC songs and tons of other rock/metal songs to be absolute classics, extremely well sung, emotional AND difficult to emulate. Do you think it's easy to sound like Axl Rose or Lou Gramm or Steven Tyler, just to name a few rock vocalists?

[ronws]

Good point, Brie. Have you checked out "Come, Sail Away" or "Gethsemane"? Albeit, they are rock songs but a different approach or style to singing but not that different than, for example, the Judas Priest version of "Green Manalishi" or the Judas Priest version of "Diamonds and Rust."

I agree, though I have found Axl Rose to be inspiring as far as volume and range, I also find him to be inspiring because he is changing his tone, so to speak, and you really must listen the lastest album. He's even talked of putting out an instrumental album, his preferred instrument being the piano. Bon Scott was not as versatile a singer but what a unique tone. A tone that I can't do much and don't try to. I'm of the opinion of using distortion sparingly. I am 46 and expect sing another 40 years.

I once heard an interview of a record producer who found there to be more expression and "urgency" at the higher registers. But I think, even if he was correct, it is a trick of the ear, a trick of the voice. When you get into the science of the voice and what it takes to produce a note, with different notes by neccesity having different overtones, there's not really any specific registers. As well as the science of what we hear. As for why a number of people prefer maybe tenor to baritone, you might as well ask why "blondes have more fun" or any number of stereotypes of preference in art and beauty.

Jonpall raises a good point. Some of the particpants here were probably not born until "Sweet Child of Mine" was released. Perhaps, that is the song that led to their conception. In any case, such songs are the classics, to them, so to speak. If Bel Canto were still largely popular amongst the masses, then perhaps they would be the "rock stars" of today, though many of us have heard of Domingo, Pavarotti, Beverly Sills, et al.

But even so, it seems, what the populace wants is not necessarily the widest range or even the highest. Justin Hawkins sings the same ranges as other singers, but cleanly, but mostly only other musicians know of him. Instead, everyone knows Bruce Springsteen. Until his later years, when he softened a bit, I never thought of his voice as much to crow about. I used to joke that the E Street Band should have Bruce play sax and let Clarence do the singing. Bruce's most popular song is an example of how to do everything wrong with your voice. "Born in the USA" hurts me to hear, not because the notes are unpleasant, which they are, but because I know it's tearing up his voice. And the record was flying out of the stores.

Probably a number of us here might be classically labelled as baritones and few would be natural tenors. At least if we were still in the Bel Canto system. But even that has stereotypes of viewpoints, hence the names of falsetto and castrati, based on the "belief" that no real man could sing that note.

Now, perhaps the problem in judging a voice based on a popular song such as "Sweet Child of Mine" is in the phrasing and choice of words in the lyrics. There are not many held notes. In fact, when I did that song, I changed the gutteral stop acrobatics in the original artist's recording to one held note. It suited me better, I think. Some songs will defy vocal analysis, like "Brandy" by Looking Glass. It is essentially, to borrow from opera, again, a recitative, "sung" at converational volume and pitch around the true pitch.

Now, if we were all trying to sing "Confutatis Maledictus," that would be another story. Also, there are few singers today following a tradition, unless it is the new one, so to speak, of hard rock and heavy metal tenor. Example, Glen Campbell, of scottish descent, was singing as a celtic performer. So does Bono from U2, but with more grit and dirty tone. Stuart Adamson of Big Country was singing upper baritone in the same tradition as Glen Campbell and you can really hear it on their smash hit, "In a big country," complete with bagpipes timbre, either real or aped on the keyboard.

[ronws]

So, it's a matter of perspective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or the ear of the listener.

Much of modern singing is actually an extension of the blues, which came from gospel, which came from african timing and phrasing being applied to hymnals. A new aesthetic that developed in America and continues to this day. That includes voice timbres somewhat different from Bel Canto. And because of different timbres, different "ranges."

[VideoHere]

I noticed the previous posting about tenor voice preference and I am a regular visitor to the Critique my Voice forum and a thought that relates to both occurred that I wanted to share.

Firstly; why do so many posts on the critique forum concern themselves with what I call "agony" singing? There is so little musicality - and so little virtuosity - in Sweet Child of Mine, Highway to Hell, anything in fact from that AC/DC, Judas Priest, Metallica and so on genre, that using their songs as test pieces is largely pointless. There is simply not enough in them to let any one judge the voice.

Anyone with a trained, capable voice can make any sound they want. But why would anyone with a trained, capable voice want to make that sort of sound? Surely the only reason Axl sings the way he does is because he doesn't know any better?

And this brings me back to the tenor - baritone issue. Being a baritone myself I understand the frustration that the emphasis on the tenor voice can bring. But when listening to Juan Diego Florez, say, you simply have to admit that there is something in his tenor singing that makes it stand out and admit to understanding why people want to hear it and more importantly, pay for it. It's also true that the tenor canon contains some of the "best" (ie most popular, easy listening) songs ever written.

What I would say is that the top of the baritone range and the top of the tenor are not millions of miles apart and a baritone singing "up there" with the right qualities to his voice can sound every bit as bright and interesting as a tenor. Singers fronting bands doing 2 and 3 hour gigs are there, on stage, for the long haul and their voice has to stand up to the demands of long sets. Singing with a "bit in hand" whatever the "range" of their voice has got to be a sound strategy?

It seems to me that while singers might need to grow their listenable range, bands and instrumentalists might need to learn a bit more about transposition?

i find opera/classical singers exquisite as do i find rock, as do i find soul, as do i find r&b.

they're all exquisite.

[jonpall]

You can go far as a singer as a baritone and never sing a high note, sure. You can also sing with and without rasp and people will love you. Ultimately it's about the music, so if the songs you sing are good, it's not really that important. But on the other hand, it's just in the human nature, for at least many of us, to try to better ourselves and achieve something that we couldn't do before. And to so many listeners out there, high notes and also high notes with a bit of rasp every now and then, just strike a chord in them that convey a huge amount of emotion and they love to hear it. Cheers.